BURROUGHS CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
WHITE LUMBER SALES, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court denied certiorari review of trial court's discovery order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining interrogatories despite petitioner's burden and relevance objections.
A trial court's discovery rulings will not be disturbed on certiorari absent a clear abuse of discretion constituting a departure from essential legal requirements.
[1] Trial court's discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse constituting departure from essential legal requiremen…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurroughs Corporation objected to certain interrogatories as burdensome and irrelevant, but the trial court sustained them after a full hearing.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter has been considered on petition for common law certiorari. Petitioner contends that certain interrogatories which the trial court sustained over objection by petitioner are burdensome and irrelevant. While the answers to these interrogatories obviously will require great effort on the part of petitioner, the supervision of the scope of discovery is a matter within the wide discretion of the trial court. Affirmance is required except in those case where an abuse of discretion has been shown so as to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law which cannot be remedied on appeal. Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The trial court’s resolution of discovery problems should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Continental Mortgage Investors v. Village By The Sea, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Here it is clear that the trial court carefully considered the particular interrogatories after a full hearing and presentation of the position of the various parties. We conclude there has been no abuse of discretion demonstrated and that a jurisdictional basis for certiorari review is thus lacking. Certiorari is, therefore, denied.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
CROSS, LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Humana OF Fla., Inc. v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…and the lower court’s order is quashed, [*1023] without prejudice to allowing respondent an opportunity after remand to make the required showing. WRIT ISSUED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). . Section 395.041(4), Florida Statutes (1985) states that The incident reports shall be considered to be a part of the work papers of the attorney defending the establishment in litigation relating thereto and shall be subject…
-
Smith v. Bloom, 506 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…iry is limited to a determination of whether the orders constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing irreparable harm that cannot be rectified on plenary appeal. See, e.g., Burroughs Corporation v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Certiorari is the proper vehicle for testing a discovery order, Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and is particularly appropriate where disclosures are required to be made which, once made, may obviously not…
-
Am. Funding v. Ira Hill, Jr., 402 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ial court is given wide discretion in dealing with discovery matters, and unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order will not be disturbed by the appellate court. See Burroughs Corporation v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4 DC A 1979). In the instant case, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Hutto’s motion to compel after American Funding failed to respond to Hutto’s request for production within the time limits imposed by Rule…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zuberbuhler v. Division OF Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Cont'l Mortg. Invs. v. Vill. BY THE SEA, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Abelson v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)